Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem?

Danny Angus <Danny_Angus@slc.co.uk> Mon, 23 January 2006 09:15 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F0xn4-0007C2-NH; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 04:15:10 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F0xn1-0007Bp-1B for asrg@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 04:15:07 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA00776 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 04:13:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail71.messagelabs.com ([193.109.255.131]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F0xwK-0006jS-BT for asrg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 04:24:45 -0500
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: Danny_Angus@slc.co.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-71.messagelabs.com!1138007690!25704847!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.9.1; banners=slc.co.uk,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [195.99.121.125]
Received: (qmail 24736 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2006 09:14:51 -0000
Received: from mail1.slc.co.uk (HELO drsneaky.slc.co.uk) (195.99.121.125) by server-8.tower-71.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 23 Jan 2006 09:14:51 -0000
Received: from emerald.slc.co.uk (emerald.slc.co.uk) by drsneaky.slc.co.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.12) with ESMTP id <T7602f4ea69c0a8646561c@drsneaky.slc.co.uk>; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:15:46 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20060118180328.41973.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem?
To: John Levine <asrg@johnlevine.com>
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OFD03FEE8E.C482F8CB-ON802570FF.00328159-802570FF.0032E181@slc.co.uk>
From: Danny Angus <Danny_Angus@slc.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:15:45 +0000
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Emerald/SLC (Release 6.5.2|June 01, 2004) at 23/01/2006 09:15:46
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
Cc: asrg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: asrg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-bounces@ietf.org

Yeah I'd be happy to.
I've been trying to identify the most common reasons why we tend to
classify and dismiss proposals, often pretty brusquely.
What we seem to be doing is to compare them with a implict set of
requirements which the group subscribe to but don't publish.
We then have problems explaining to the proposer exactly why "your solution
is a ..." means that we believe it has a pimary design flaw.

Watch this space.

d.




|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           John Levine      |
|         |           <asrg@johnlevine.|
|         |           com>             |
|         |                            |
|         |           18/01/2006 06:03 |
|         |           PM               |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                                 |
  |       To:       asrg@ietf.org                                                                                                   |
  |       cc:       Danny_Angus@slc.co.uk                                                                                           |
  |       Subject:  Re: [Asrg] Spam, why is it still a problem?                                                                     |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|




>IMHO any "IFUSSP" solution would probably need to meet the following
>requirements..

This is a nice list.  Any chance you could work it up into a draft of
proposed criteria for anti-spam techniques?

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.



***************************************************************************
The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient) please notify us immediately on 0141 306 2050 and delete the message from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its contents to any other person. As Internet communications are capable of data corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not accept any  responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be inappropriate to rely on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender accepts any liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility to scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student Loans Company Limi!
 ted.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

**************************************************************************

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg